WorldNetDaily’s latest article on the Lakin case includes this analysis by LTC Lakin’s civilian counsel, Paul Rolf Jensen:

Lakin’s attorney, Paul Rolf Jensen, told WND that of all the dozens of cases that have been brought to various courts over the issue of Obama’s eligibility, Lakin’s probably is the strongest yet.

He said that after the preliminary procedures but before the actual trial, there will be a time for the discovery of evidence.

Jensen expressed confidence that the necessary information will be obtained.

“This is a criminal case,” he noted, with a possible punishment of several years in jail. “In order for a criminal defendant to defend himself in a criminal court he has to be given the opportunity to put on a defense.”

“The records are relevant.”

He said Driscoll’s order would have allowed a “defense” but only the defense that would have been approved by prosecutors.

The records and testimony requests will be renewed before a military judge who, Jensen believes, should see “there is an issue of allowing a criminal defendant an opportunity to prove his innocence.”

Issues of loss of privacy for the president would be “minimal” compared to the prison time possible for a defendant who would be refused the opportunity to access all the relevant evidence available, he suggested.

As we’ve discussed, evidence concernng President Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve has no legal relevance to the charges facing LTC Lakin.  Those documents, therefore, cannot “prove his innocence.”  Hence, the military judge will deny any motion to compel production of documents or witnesses concerning President Obama’s constitutional eligibility.

32 Responses to “Paul Rolf Jensen’s analysis of what will happen in the Lakin case”

  1. Socrates says:

    IAC WARNING! Attorney Jensen seems to primarily motivated by his own agenda, not that of his client. Jensen’s statements to the press indicate that he is providing advice to his client that falls far short of those minimal standards required of the defense & military justice bar.

    LAKIN AFFIDAVIT, 1 JAN 2011: “My attorney, Mr. Jensen, never informed me of the well settled law under the de facto officer doctrine. Neither did he inform me of the political question doctrince. My attorney, Mr. Jensen, never informed me that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate was legally irrelevant and was not discovarable or admissable as evidence at my court-martial. Had I received proper legal counsel, I would not have made the choices I made.”

    Jensen’s history indicates that he is a sex-obsessed “heresy hunter” In 2004-05, Jensen filed dozens of complaints against Presbyterian ministers charging them with either being sexually active homosexuals or participating in the ordination of lgbt people. Jensen also apparantly represented a political strategist who revealed that ex-Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York was involved with call girls, and revealed to the world that the Gov did not remove his midcalf-length black socks during the sex act. (Making the world safe for democracy!)

    The next person to be on the business-end of the type of illegal sex act Jensen seems to be infatuated with, if you know what I mean, will be LTC Lakin.

  2. King Jorge III says:

    It looks like Ltc Birfer Lakin is getting his money’s worth from Jensen. Too bad no one is listening to the appointed military counsel, but that wouldn’t keep Lakin and err.. Jensen in the blogs. This well traveled road just indicates that the Ltc and “friends” do not have even the first iota of the concept of the Military Justice System (often referred to as “America’s Only Working Railroad” see wiki Article 15). I don’t see any corners — just full steam ahead for the “Jail-Bird Special”. Next stop – Ft Leavenworth, KS.

  3. Trevor says:

    @Socrates.

    If Lakin was only being represented by Jensen, than a possible case of IAC could be raised. With (presumably) competent military counsel in play as well, then the chance of success is vanishingly small.

    Lakins wilful act of ignoring advice does not a case make.

  4. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    Trevor,

    Agreed that military defense counsel should make the IAC a moot issue, but tell me there won’t be an Appellate DC who will raise the issue anyway. I mean, everyone knows that Military DC are worthless anyway, so Lakin would be expected to ignore MDC advice for CDC advice.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I think that depends, in part, on what Jensen is telling Lakin about his military counsel. If Jensen “poisons the relationship,” as William Kunstler apparently did in Lonetree, an IAC claim might survive despite whatever his military counsel advises him.

    But I would be really surprised if Lakin raises IAC on appeal. He’d have to make a complete about-face regarding the underlying issue, and I don’t see that happening.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Pretty sure the caselaw says IAC is a team effort folks, if civilian counsel goes down so shall military counsel.

  7. Cheap Seats says:

    So let me see…POTUS is not eligible, therefore I don’t have to follow any orders. Makes for a good cross (assuming LTC takes the stand). Think I’d go over about 10-20 orders he DID follow after 20 Jan 2009. Funny that he doesn’t have to follow orders but chooses to right up until deployment. I bet the members will like that one.

  8. mikeyes says:

    LTC Lakin is a graduate of AMEDD basic and advanced officer training. He is fully aware of the defacto officer doctrine and the obligation to follow orders. Unless he cheated through those schools, he was aware of those issues before he went on his crusade.

    What is his military lawyer telling him?

    This is the same scenario as the Huet-Vaughn refusal to serve except that the lawyer in her case had a left wing agenda. She was only in her unit for a short period of time (my unit, the 410th Field Hospital) and then went on a long journey with her lawyer hitting every friendly meeting, radio show and television station before she went on trial. LTC Lakin is doing the 21st century version of the same thing.

  9. Anonymous says:

    I thought the team effort thing applies as well. However, in US v Thornton, a Navy case out of Groton that went to Norfolk for rehearing, the court found ineffective assistance by the Trial Defense Counsel. However, they didn’t find an ineffective assitant counsel. I find that odd. Maybe someone in Norfolk can update us…

  10. Anonymous says:

    Lakin is not an indigent defendant saddled with a court-appointed attorney. He chose his civilian counsel, choosing one with no experience in either military or constitutional law (though a strong record in dog bite cases). In fact almost any lawyer chosen by throwing darts at the ads on the Metro Red Line would have been better. Nevertheless, shouldn’t Lakin bear the responsibility for his own choices both in counsel and actions?

  11. Bridget says:

    If the goal of the CDC is political, it is surprising that the defense waived the 32, the place where the scope of evidence considered is more, well, flexible than in trial. When the IO asked for briefings, it might have been wise to revisit some “orders” issues. Judge Sullivan dissenting /concurrence in both Huet-Vaughn and New are certainly food for a brief.

    With the history of war related prosecutions in the past decade, there may be some questions raised that might help you make a record. (or for example,a question from an E-6 in an MI unit during a LOW briefing: “So, Major, how do I make a decision? I disobey the order at my own risk, but if I obey the order I may commit a crime, how do I decide?-good question, I didn’t have a very good answer.)

    I dislike lawyers who go around telling service members that they can lawfully disobey orders in the service of the cause of the day. But, if you have a client who has done so, a vigorous defense is not rejecting the golden opportunities served up at the 32. I found that baffling. Perhaps this is the type of strategic decision making that will be excused in IAC claims-and LTC Lakin is a grown-up and presumable wiser than SPC Snuffy or LCPL Smuckatella.

  12. Cap'n Crunch says:

    LTC Lakin: if you ever read this, I’d be happy to take your legal malpractice case on a contingency against Mr. Jensen! What is 33% of LTC pay and retirements, amortized, to net present value? Hope your malpractice premiums are paid up Mr. Jensen!!

  13. soonergrunt says:

    Did he GIVE any orders to subordinates, either before or after 20JAN09, and expect those orders to be obeyed? If so, why, and on what grounds did he expect his subordinates to obey his orders?
    Does anyone here really believe that he never ordered anyone to do anything in the last 17.5 months?
    Perhaps the NCOIC of his clinic should be called:
    TC:”Sergeant Smith, did LTC Lakin ever order you or any of the other enlisted staff to perform any duties, or did LTC Lakin sign any orders or allow any orders to be executed over his signature since 20JAN09?”
    Smith:”Sir, he signed a few DA6 forms, a couple of DA31s, and a whole bunch of DD689s.”
    TC:”No further questions.”

  14. Socrates says:

    The military defense counsel should make a motion to the court to withdraw from representation and “publish” his advice to LTC Lakin, on the record. This is the optimal way, perversely, to protect his client (both by making a more forceful statement of the law then would otherwise obtain AND preserving a later IAC claim vs. Jensen).

  15. Truther51 says:

    Whatever happened to the “by what authority do I obey these orders” defense?
    I’m a civilian but it would seem that question is the crux of the matter and must be addressed. Isn’t the CIC ultimately responsible for all military orders?
    BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

  16. Christopher Mathews says:

    Truther: it is not the crux of the matter and it need not be addressed. The orders LTC Lakin disobeyed do not owe their lawfulness to the qualifications of the President.

    Hence, the I.O.’s ruling.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Whatever happened to the “by what authority do I obey these orders” defense?I’m a civilian but it would seem that question is the crux of the matter and must be addressed. Isn’t the CIC ultimately responsible for all military orders?BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

    69 million voters, 369 Electoral College votes and the certification by Congress without objection.

  18. Socrates says:

    “Truther51” – you need to get on board the right conspiracy train. “Truthers” are the crazy people who masquerade their contempt for the United States by alleging that the US Government conspired to launch the terrorist attacks of 9-11. (I take it that you are 51st person to sign-up).

    “Birthers,” on the other hand, are the semi-literate people who masquerade their hatred of black people by alleging that Barrack Obama was not born in the United States (and only white people should be President).

    Since birthers love the original constitution so much, I’m wondering if they would settle for this compromise: President Obama is at least 3/5ths our President.

  19. Article16 says:

    I don’t predict IAC…I predict garbage motions to compel, and garbage extraordinary writs….admonition of this guy’s performance as an attorney before the trial judiciary should happen way earlier.

    Also, IAC matters where there’s prejudice, and I’m the sentencing phase is where there’s a risk of that–obviously, it’s largely the accused’s choice if he really wants to make a statement on sentencing that hurts himself, but the other evidence presented shouldn’t also make the panel want to bring the hammer.

    It’s probably speculation to think the accused here wants a book deal and a place on a speaker’s circuit, but if there were any evidence of that I think the prosecutor’s should present it and argue for a fine.

  20. soonergrunt says:

    Whatever happened to the “by what authority do I obey these orders” defense?

    That defense never existed as far as I’ve ever heard. Demanding to know the authority by which an officer known to you to be superior to you in the chain of command simply never ends well for you.

  21. Greg says:

    How does that work, Truther? If I’m a private in the Army, do I challenge the authority of every officer in my chain of command up to and including the President?

    “Okay, I see that you are appropriately authorized to give me this order that you signed, but what about the Secretary of Defense? I’m pretty sure that his appointment violated the emoluments clause.”

  22. Truther51 says:

    Last post suggest dianbramage. Yeah, Patriots are all dainbramaged lunatics. Those on the other side of the fence have already been re-educated to the NWO so they need not worry (lol).
    Right and wrong, left and right, the only thing in common there is RIGHT and Lakin is, most assuradly, right.
    God bless him and God bless America.

  23. soonergrunt says:

    You’re not a patriot. Stop insulting actual patriots by calling yourself a patriot. A patriot loves his country without condition or reservation. You love your country only when a man of the right skin color and religious belief holds the presidency. Patriots in the armed forces obey the orders they are given without regard to whether or not they voted for the President (who was duly-elected and all of the whining and wishful thinking in the world won’t change that) because that’s the way the system works.
    Lakin is not right. You are not right. Please stop eating the paste (which might explain your self-claimed brain damage) and advocating mutiny and sedition by members of the armed forces. Patriots don’t do that, either.
    And do tell–since, in my opinion, GW Bush wasn’t actually properly elected (Gore won Florida) and the Supreme Court basically admitted that their rationale for stopping the Florida recount was bul*s**t, would I have been within my rights to refuse to deploy under him as CinC? Do you think that the Army is going to vest the right to decide which orders have to be followed and which ones don’t in a lowly Medical Corps Leiutenant Colonel and trust his judgement on this instead of the 50 or so Generals and several hundred full Colonels, some of whom are military lawyers and many of whom are experienced leaders? Really? Wow. That’s one of the dumbest things I’ve read in a long time, and I hang out at Daily Kos, so that’s really saying something.

  24. King Jorge III says:

    He could have resigned, but that doesn’t have the publicity value of a Court Marshal. I mean, who really give a darn about some Medical Corps Ltc resigning – for any reason…??

    If you are going (in his case) to volunteer to give up all your benefits anyway, you might as well get something out of it besides jail time. It was his choice to pursue the Court Marshal initially.

    Wait, I have a “vision”…
    Carefully wedge the sword in the rocks so it sticks straight up. Climb onto the rock next to it and perform a classic swan dive right onto the sword. You may wiggle for awhile, and it will all be over soon.

  25. Norbrook says:

    By what authority? Various articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice – passed by Congress, and signed into law by previous Presidents, along with other laws and regulations. That’s a start.

    You see, the defense you’re thinking of doesn’t really exist in the military. Those of us who did serve or are now serving grasp that concept. If someone wearing a higher rank than you gives you an order, you’re required to follow it, with some very specific exceptions. It’s really simple, and if you don’t do it, you get a court-martial.

    LTC Lakin is charged with disobeying orders from direct, immediate superiors, and with failure to obey orders from another superior to report to a different assignment. None of those orders came from President Obama, Secretary Gates, Secretary McHugh, or any member of the Chiefs of Staff. Using an old term from my service days, he’s SOL.

  26. Rob M says:

    To put it another way, Congress has power to make laws for the regulation of the land and naval forces, and of the militia when called into federal service. Using this authority, Congress has granted military officers the authority to issue orders which have the force of law. That authority is not derived from nor dependent upon any authority the President has as Commander in Chief (including his constitutionally granted authority to appoint Officers of the United States).

    A Colonel who gives a (lawful) order to a Lieutenant Colonel has the authority to do so, authority based in law and regulation (or, to quote the oath of enlistment, “according to regulation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice”).

  27. Rob M says:

    I should have read this post before I posted my earlier, considered response to what I (naively) thought was a thoughtful question.

  28. Kriselda Jarnsaxa says:

    If I were able to cross-examine Lakin, I’d like to hear how he justified not only accepting, following and likely issuing orders for the last 17.5 months, but also accepting his paycheck. If there are no orders he can follow because the president is, in his view, illegitimate, then how can he do any work? And if he can do no work, then there’s nothing to pay him for. He should have, on principle, refused those checks, since they came from an illegitimate commander.

  29. AnonymousTheOtherOne says:

    [quote]Socrates says:
    June 11, 2010 at 4:43 pm (Quote)
    . . .
    Since birthers love the original constitution so much, I’m wondering if they would settle for this compromise: President Obama is at least 3/5ths our President.[/quote]
    Hmmm – so the three-fifths-part allows Lakin to accept his paycheck, while the rest allows him to reject deployment orders ?

  30. Curious says:

    Why does a birther have to be racist? Can’t he or she be blinded simply because they don’t like Obama for his politics or liberal thinking in genral? Does everyone who opposes, or didn’t vote for, Obama hate African-Americans?

  31. Christopher Mathews says:

    Curious @ 0937, the birther movement does not profess to concern itself with the President’s political philosophy or his policies.

  32. soonergrunt says:

    The venn diagram of racists and birfers is almost two concentric circles.
    Let’s just make this simple, without me using a word that would most likely trigger a filter or removal.
    http://tinyurl.com/6hdjgy